Regional disparities and dual dynamics: Economic growth and income inequality in Kazakhstan

2024

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.14254/2071-789x.2024/17-2/12
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This study examines the complex relationships between economic growth and income inequality in different regions of Kazakhstan, revealing the nuances of their interaction. The article aims to assess the long-term and short-term effects of economic growth on income inequality in both forward and reverse directions across the regions of Kazakhstan. Employing region-specific time series data allowed us to examine the bidirectional impact of economic growth on inequality, using an error correction model (ECM) to describe short-run and long-run relationships. The results highlight that the relationship between economic growth and income inequality is heterogeneous across regions, reflecting each area's unique economic and social landscapes. The estimation results support the hypothesis of an inverted U-shaped Kuznets curve linking GRP per capita to inequality with varying starting points for different regions. Regarding the inverse relationship, we identified a positive causal relationship for the West Kazakhstan, Zhambyl and Pavlodar regions, indicating that increased income inequality stimulated economic growth. The study also highlights the significant role of trade, labour force, investment and government consumption in shaping these relationships.